Talk:Colonization of the Moon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion

Hello,

What else do we need to do to this page to bring it up to the standard for Wikification ?

I will be happy to help this effort.

Lunar development is a lifetime passion for me, and I am delighted to find this page on Wikipedia. I intend to be a frequent visitor.

Thanks,

Charles R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfrjlr (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 December 2004

I think the reason that this article was given a cleanup notice may be partly because it is very POV. The article doesn't have much information on difficulties a lunar colony might face, and it does not have any hint of an opposing viewpoint such as skeptic’s reasons for why a lunar colony may be impractical. I don't have any particular opinion of either viewpoint but both sides of a topic should be presented. Sentences should be rewritten so they don't particularly support or deny something. Take the paragraph,

One big problem with a Lunar colony has been a source of continuous power. While a nuclear power plant would solve this, it would be a very expensive proposition, either lifted from the Earth's deep gravity well, or fabricated with on site materials by machines transported from Earth. While solar panels would be much more easily fabricated, the long lunar night (14 Earth days) would require some kind of massive and expensive power storage facility. This site neatly eliminates that problem because it is exposed to the sun most of the time; two closely spaced arrays would receive continuous power. The solar panels, incidentally need not necessarily be silicon. It is more feasible to simply use the several hundred degree difference between sun and shade to run basic heat engine generators.

Lets illustrate the problems by going over them one by one, first it states that transporting a nuclear power source would be very expensive as well as fabricating one on site, which might be true but the paragraph does not attempt to justify these claims. Second this article seems to be centered on the original authors choice for the location of a lunar colony. The article makes no effort to talk about other possible sites. Next take the sentence "It is more feasible to simply use the several hundred degree difference between sun and shade to run basic heat engine generators." This sentence could be rewritten (along with the entire article) as "It might be more feasible to use the difference in temperature between the sun and shade to run heat engine generators."

The article doesn't provide a history of proposed Lunar Habitats (from my own memory I can think of plans from both the United States and the Soviet Union to build Lunar bases).

The article states that "several fanciful habitats have been suggested", but doesn't state anything else about these habitats, or why they MIGHT BE (remember neutral POV) "fanciful".

There are no references anywhere in this article, the article states "The latest radar mapping and other sensor data have suggested an intriguing site near the Moon's South pole." But the question now is "What is the source of information?", "What organization conducted this research?", "When did this research take place?".

I feel that the business section is also, very speculative and very POV dependant.

Well those are some of my ideas of what is wrong with this article and why it needs a cleanup, if you have any suggestions feel free to voice them. As stated before I am not here to take a position for or against colonization of the moon but to point out the one sided nature of this article and any other problems I see.

--Silver86 00:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a pro and con discussion and made some npov edits. What else is needed? --agr 20:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well we could use a few more sites perhaps somthing like Peary (crater), and I think the Transport section could use a bit of a re-write.--Silver86 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And also, what to do with the business section? )Maver1ck 11:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we Could change it to "Possible economic opportunities on the moon" or somthing to that effect and disscuss that in a NPOV way.(don't forget to cite your souces)--Silver86 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there something very wrong with the Wikipedia process when no reason for putting up a cleanup notice is not given? Moreover Silver86 writes that he thinks it is because it is POV, yet POV was not the tag used. As for sources, much of recent knowledge on the Moon is from the Clementine mission in 1994 and papers on proposed Peak of Eternal Light often use data from this mission. Interestingly this article does not contain links to Peak of Eternal Light though I cannot see exactly why this is so. 85.164.123.89 17:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The likely reason why there was no link to Peak of Eternal Light is that no one working on this article had heard of it before. I've added it. This is probably not the best place to discuss wikipedia policy if you want someone that matters to pay attention. I agree that we should either list specific places that still need improvment or it's time to remove the cleanup tag. --agr 16:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoever this "someone that matters" might be I suspect them of being asleep at the wheel; I am fighting a few battles elsewhere. Instead I have changed my policy towards local fixes such as here. I had hoped this subthread would have woken up those that set the tag to explain themselves. Without the original reasoning there is no benchmark against which we can determine wether or not the time is ripe to remove the cleanup tag. Personally I feel the time is here, the article, while not complete, is sufficient for passing general muster. I am, however, not going to claim the authority to do that on my own. On the longer term I feel military aspects of the moon should be added. US forces had planned a lunar base in the 50's and with the possibility of He3 and ice on the moon a number of sites become of induatrial/commercial and thus also strategic importance. Add to this the recently disclosed space warfare doctrine and president GW Bush' moon and Mars initiative I feel convinced the US military aspects should be added. I know that there is a UN resolution on military presence on the moon but that can also be cancelled. Or would it be better with a separate article on military aspects of the moon? And thenks for adding the link to Peak of Eternal Light. 85.164.95.58 18:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest a seaparate article on military use of the moon and space if you think you have enough material. A base is not the same as a colony. There is an article on the Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has ratified and which bans military use. As for the cleanup tag, how about we request specifices by Feb. 20, otherwise the tag goes? I think that would be fair to all. --agr 21:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A separate article is possible but it will as far as I know be a bit small and with much overlap. For instance many of the early astronauts were military test pilots, and the Soviet launch vehicles were military in nature. A base in not a colony, true. The US military had planned a base in the mid 50's with a few tens of crew members but to protect the resources on the moon you would need a lot more, also civilians. The old project name was "Project Horizon" but there is no disambiguation page for this, instead it leads to a different project. I second the idea of a deadline to remove the tag. 85.164.76.159 17:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, we have passed the deadline 2005-02-20 mentioned above, yet the tag remains. Also I see article itself has not been edited since 2005-02-09 and discuss page not since 2005-02-13. Time to drop the tag? 85.164.85.121 21:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag per above discussion. --agr 01:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Added picture

I added a picture at the top because I felt it needed it, and added the NASA tag at the bottom becuase all of the images on this page are from NASA --Silver86 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also added a few things to the "See Also".--Silver86 07:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked the location and "Business" sections. --agr 19:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your reworking of the location section does seem to clean things up a bit. I like it.--Silver86 20:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also added an intro and touched up transportation. I think it may be at the point where the notices can come off: Anything I'm missing? --agr 13:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I took the NPOV off, but I've left the Cleanup becuase I think the article could use just a little bit more polishing.--Silver86 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I might take another pass after a break. Any sections in particular that concern you? --agr 20:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I thought that the article, should have an introduction similar to the colonization of space article, somthing that states the obvious to the layman and serves as a short simple and sweet introduction, them some of the information in the introduction can be moved to other sections like history. Perhaps moving the current statement about apollo to somewhere in the history. And brief information about the moon apollo missions in the history(becuase they were important to the fesibility of sending people to the moon and landing, and gathering information) along with these we must include the link to the actual mission article. Well those are my ideas at the moment.--Silver86 22:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I edited the intro and history sections. I left the Apollo sentence in the intro as I think it belongs there. The article isn't perfect, but I feel it is on a par with most other Wikipedia articles at this point. --agr 18:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A bit of interesting info from NASA

I found this little bit on NASA, its only somwhat related. I'm not saying we should add it to the article, but maybe I'll add a bit to the rover article. --->[http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/f_leftovers.html Apollo's Lunar Leftovers ] --Silver86 22:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Radiation hazards on the Moon

This article really doesn't say much about the problem of radiation on the moon. FYI: There is an interesting story at Science@NASA on one possible solution using electric fields to repel radiation. [1]. BlankVerse ∅ 11:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is not the same amount of radiation as interplanetary space because the bulk of the moon blocks half the sky from those on the surface giving about half the radiation level of interplanetary space (at least with cosmic rays). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.184.46 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

moon dust

Shouldn't the article mention hazards of moon dust? Samohyl Jan 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

China

"Spurred by the prospect of a Chinese lunar base, in 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush called for a plan to return manned missions to the Moon by 2020. Propelled by this new initiative, NASA issued a new long-range plan that includes building a base on the Moon as a staging point to Mars."

I'd say this is inaccurate. The new NASA initiave was spurred in the response to the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia.

Until we know for sure what it was spurred by, there's no point in even speculating on it. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. bob rulz 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

moonquakes

It is stated on the mainpage "Advantages list" that the Moon is geologically dead. This is inaccurate. The Moon experiences frequent Lunar quakes, likely the result of collapsing crater walls "ringing" through the whole Moon (the Moon has no mantle comparible to Earth's that would deaden seismic activity).

Tidal stress from Earth is also a factor in Moonquakes. Noclevername 06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyrights

What's with the "©NASA" captions on the images here? The image pages each say This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. Ojw 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most footnote links are dead

Most of the links in the "notes" section are dead. I'll wait a few weeks, but if these aren't fixed, I'll just remove them all. Lunokhod 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement before nominating as a Good article

I have just read through the entire text, and think that this topic is fairly well written. I'd like to nominate this as a good article, but there are a few things that need to be adressed before hand.

• The "introduction" is way too long. This should only be about one paragraph, as opposed to 5. The details should not be placed here, but rather in the text that follows.
• The article is somewhat long, and very wordy. As this is an encylopedia entry, and not a white paper, we should strive to be concise, and to remove extraneous details (such as "The low gravity may find health uses such as allowing the physically disabled to continue to enjoy an active lifestyle.").
• The intro makes it sound like "Since the Moon is made of 42 percent oxygen, we can easily extract all of this for use in a colony!" The same goes for iron, and silicon. However, as is well known (and stated much, much, later in the article) it is VERY hard to extract elements from an oxide. This needs to be explained before making is sound like it will be very easy to mine resources on the Moon. The same goes for He-3. There are no helium-3 reactors on Earth, and this will have nothing to do with the early manned exploration of the Moon.
• There are MANY instances where "science fiction" concepts are presented. This diminishes the importance of the topic because it makes it sound like colonies will never become "reality". It is my opinion that this article should emphasize the early stages of building a colony, not the far off into the unimaginable future where Mag-Lev trains criss-cross the lunar surface with space elevators, and so on.
• There are almost no inline citations, and this give the impression that the article is more science fiction than science (which, in my opinion, is not the case).

Lunokhod 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Make a redirect page titled "Moon outpost" and link it to this page.

Terraforming?

On the terraforming page, it says that the Moon has been looked at for terraforming, but there's nothing said here. I think its deserves at least a mention. --J Arn 00:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All it actually says, as far as I can see, is a brief mention of why the moon isn't remotely suitable for terraforming (much like the vast majority of the universe). Therefore, I don't see any reason why that needs to be mentioned. - -Stellmach 13:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

It is really important for the lead section, and particularly the lead paragraph, to set the tone of this article as being an encyclopedia article. I suggest starting with a definition, even if that seems self-evident. Sdsds 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I made an attempt at this myself. Comments here (or further contributions made directly to the article) are of course welcome. Sdsds 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Heheh... fission/fusion

A nuclear fission reactor could possibly be able to fulfill most of the need for power. The advantage it has against a fusion reactor is that it is an already existing technology.

Really? It is definitely advantageous to use technologies that have been invented when you're doing complex engineering projects. Using tech that hasn't been invented is somewhat difficult. SparhawkWiki 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right about that, certainly. Whether fusion will be available by the time we colonize the moon remains to be seen.--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Technicalities

I hate to be picky, but in the article it says, "On the lunar near side, the Earth appears large and is always visible as an object 60 times brighter than the Moon does on Earth, unlike more distant locations where the earth would be seen merely as a star-like object, much as the planets appear from Earth. As a result, a Lunar colony might feel less remote to humans living there. The Apollo 8 astronauts, when behind the Moon, were the first humans to have no view of the Earth."Could it not be said that any blind person or, indeed, anyone closing their eyes has "no view of the earth" temporarily?--

And by the way, why is there a template on top of the discussion page saying that "This article was nominated for deletion" when the template links to Colonization of Mercury?

Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this point, because (if you count the Earth's atmosphere as being part of Earth), the first person in space who was not looking towards Earth, would have been the first human to have no view of Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.202.170 (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section

Most of the information in the article seems to be from government funded space programs and studies. Nothing wrong with this as that is where most of the available information comes from. It might be a nice addition to create a section on active or current private space initiatives aimed at getting non governmental persons to the moon on a sustainable basis. This might include but not be limited to:

• Artemis group
• Bigelow's activities related to space going hotels and tourism
• Private suborbital space flight, tourism. Developing markets and technology supportive of private lunar settlements.
• Private satellite life extension and salvage efforts.

History shows that exploration and settlement of new territory is just as likely to be led by private sector with government following as vice versa. This article should reflect that rather than being solely focused on government space programs, concepts, and data. Lazyquasar (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Space Bees?

A lack of bees is indeed a disadvantage. But seriously, there are many ways in which plants pollinate - wind and ingestion by animals are two I can think of right now - and a lack of air is pretty diasterous too. I would imagine that, without terraforming, crop growth would take place in an indoor environment, where the crops could recieve all the air, water, soil, light and bees they require. 87.113.17.51 (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead as shielding...

I removed the statement based on this reference. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge of Lunar ark to Colonization of the Moon

Lunar ark was recently saved from an AfD, but I think it may make sense to merge it into this article. Are there any sound reasons to not do this? As it currently stands, the lunar ark article is quite short and there don't seem to be all that many sources out there on it that I can find. BWH76 (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the overall definition of the two is sufficiently different to justify separate articles. I actually agree that it might make sense to merge lunar ark with another article (perhaps time capsule or something similar), but not colonization of the moon. --Grahamdubya (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Lunar ark is an interesting concept, and one I believe we as a species need to take very seriously. As a science fiction writer of hard SF ( webmac.com , "The Transhuman Singularity" ) I presuppose that the human race is destroyed and resurrected by just such a facility in my story. The point I'm trying to get to is that this is a backup device for insuring survival of the species and should be related to articles on extinction possibilities for humanity. The reason it is proposed on the moon is because it might survive whatever catastrophic events might possibly occur, giving us a second chance, or at the very least keeping a record of our existence for anyone who comes along afterwards. So, I vote, put some of it in the extinction related articles. I would also keep the article separate, because I think you might hear more about this idea in the near future, of course you could seperate it out again at that time.--206.202.64.45 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree: But only because the Ark article is a stub. Expand the content, and it would qualify again for a separate article. Chadlupkes (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mars is a low deltaV source of material

"One of the lowest delta-V sources for volatiles for the Moon is Mars, suggesting that developing colonies on Mars first may in the long run be the easiest and least expensive way to establish a colony on the Moon." This claim is unsourced and seems highly questionable to anyone who knows about this subject. It also sounds like political BS to support a 'mars first' approach to spaceflight. Please do not restore without citation.ANTIcarrot (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Polar Regions

The section on "Polar regions" has many dubious and/or unsupported claims, which I have marked with "". For example it completely ignores the effects of lunar libration. From reading I have done I believe it is not true that Malapert mountain has continuous Earth line-of-sight, nor does it have continuous illumination. Each claim needs to be individually examined and supporting references provided. I do not have time to research them right now, but it is quite likely that future research on my part will result in a major rewrite of this section. Much has been published in this area, there is no excuse for not providing references.Charles 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Advantages (and) Disadvantages

What is the intent of the sections in the article entitled Advantages (and) Disadvantages ?

Advantages (and) Disadvantages versus what?

Clarify whether this is comparison to:

• Colonies on Earth
• Colonies in space (where?)
• Colonies at Lagrange locations (where?)
• Colonies on asteroids (which ones?)
• Colonies on Mars
• Colonies somehwere else....

All the above have been proposed as sites for colonies, and each location has strong proponents and opponents, some people seem to favor their preferred colony site with religious fervor. I would ike to enhance those sections, but need some more clarification on what is expected before I start working on it.Charles 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Transit time is short. The Apollo astronauts made the trip in three days. Other chemical rockets such as would be used for any Moon missions in the next one to two decades at least, would take a similar length of time to make the trip." Third sentence does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.67.113 (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

differential time travel B*llsh*t

Scientists also discovered over time the difference in how time travels on the moon than on earth. For example, if a human being travels to the moon and returns again immediately, one would notice that the ageing process does not have as much of an effect on the person, as if that person lived on earth for that same period of time.

- I picked out this little piece of work from the article by 140.203.12.242 . I have absolutely no clue of where this came from and have never heard about such a ridiculous thing, so I'm taking it out asap. AlexKM 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Relativity

Well, technically time does travel slightly different on the Moon (or on a spacecraft or even aircraft) as an effect of Einstein's theories of Relativity, but the effect is so small it is impossible to detect by any practical means. Whoever wrote that piece was probably confused with Intersteller near-light speed travel, where the effect would be quite noticeable. Nevertheless I agree with the deletion  :-) Charles 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC) so I know you probably wont ever see this, but Im saying it anyway. The use of profanity totally negates yor logic. I can no longer take you seriously. The effects of relativity do in fact exist. Though, as Charles stated they are unnoticeable at attainable speeds, they are not "rediculous" as you so eloquently stated. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.154.161 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Solar Panels

There was some years ago an article in a Science mag about that it's been investigated that something like that could be possible that the minerals in the moon soil could be used in creating the solar panels, so that minimal amount of raw materials could be brought from earth; at the coolest there could be like a huge solar panel creating moon bulldozer that leaves a trail of solar panel behind... or something like that. The main idea of course was that the moon soil has many useful ingredients for a solar panel

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigmundur (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikia

Is it appropriate to add the Moonbase Wikia site to the page? It's not getting any attention, and it's a blank slate for individuals and groups that want to work together to develop something. Chadlupkes 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It is apppropriate to add external links which provide further information. That site is, as you say, a blank slate. At such time that it becomes a useful resource, a link would be appropriate. -Harmil 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The fact that there is An empty wiki with the name Moonbase wiki is an information in and of itself. Some may want to know about the existence of a place for newbies to interact on Lunar topics. 68.223.170.130 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Launch Costs

• Great article. To make it better let us clear up the confusion about the cost of lifting stuff to orbit from Luna. There are a variety of figures that one can reasonably come up with.
• The Apollo program cost about $135 billion 2005 dollars. With a capacity to lift 300 kilograms of astronauts and space suits and 100 kilograms of lunar materials to orbit per mission that amounts to about 26 million dollars per pound. This is about the best rate of dollars per pound lifted from Luna that has been demonstrated so far. Until there is significant development of infrastructure on Luna, that is the sort of cost people will deal with.
• In my own comment on Lunarpedia, the energy cost to orbit from Luna is given as 1 kilowatt-hour per kilogram assuming a 40% overall efficiency in a mass driver used for launching. That kilowatt-hour can be produced for less than a nickel on Earth, but considering maintenance and interest on facilities investments, a launching facility on Luna would need to be well run and handle millions of tons per year to get the cost down to less than a dollar a pound. This is not a large enterprise compared to Earthly transportation systems where one ore freighter (the Edmond Fitzgerald) can haul 26000 tons. This sort of infrastructure would take quite a few years to develop using the industry bootstrapping remotely controlled from Earth that I think was suggested by Gerard K. O’Neil, as the article mentions, in his “New Routes to Manufacturing in Space.” However, I think this should be a long term goal and a prerequisite to a Lunar colony.
• So let us say that the costs of launching to orbit from Luna are anywhere from 20,000 times greater to 10,000 times less than the cost of launching stuff from Earth depending upon where in the development process the lunar industrial base is. Let us get rid of the unsourced statement that launch costs from Luna are about a hundred times less than from Earth. It just does not give an accurate picture of the situation.

FARTHERRED--98.240.152.101 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I will look for a source for the cost of electricity on Earth. We can make that "perhaps handle millions of tons per year to get the cost down to less than a dollar a pound." which is just a guess. The important thing is that the launching cost is enormously variable depending upon the state of industrial development and market development. FARTHERRED--98.240.152.101 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia loves verifiability, so here are references: 385 kilograms of rocks returned to Earth with Apollo missions; McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (c)1997, volume 17, page 107. An astronaut with space suit weighs 150 kilograms; http://biomech.byu.edu/exsc362(hunter)/astronaut.htm. The Apollo program costs were $98 billion; Congressional research Service, "The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D programs: A comparative Analysis," Deborah D. Stine 4 Feb 2009. This adds up to 20 million dollars a pound. So we're working on 2,000 times more to 10,000 times less than the cost of launching from Earth to launch from Luna.FARTHERRED--98.240.152.101 (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Science web page http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/massdriver.html gives the efficiency of a linear induction motor as about 50%. This cannot be true for all projectile velocities. For a given level of technical development the efficiency will decrease with increasing projectile velocity, at least at the high velocity end of capabilities. Since I do not have the reference to put numbers on this, I'll settle for David Darling's estimate. If the reusable carriage weighs the same as the projectile of a mass driver, then 4 times the energy of orbital motion is needed to launch the projectile. Half of the energy of orbital motion is recovered in regenerative braking of the carriage. This gives an overall efficiency of 28% as a rough estimate. So 1.4 kilowatt hours are needed to launch one kilogram of cargo to orbit from Luna, we need a price per kilowatt-hour to convert that to a cost per pound. Excel Energy gives a cost per kilowatt-hour for the general winter rate as $0.03145/kilowatt-hour on its website http://www.xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/MNBusRateCard.pdf. So, after the development of an industry on Luna that surpasses the capabilities of Earth industry, an incremental kilogram of cargo should be launched for $0.044 plus some amount for maintenance and interest on the investment. Call it under a dollar.

This was added today, and I did some copy editing in order to clean up the references. I also added the {{Synthesis}} mbox though, because the current copy does not reflect what the sources actually say. Remember, Wikipedia Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Ohm, nothing that I posted in the “Colonization of the Moon” article is original thought unless noticing that claims of launch costs from the Moon of $20,000,000 a pound and of $0.05 a pound were referring to different states of lunar development. I am sorry that I do not have the references, but those sorry statements only deserve to be referenced to show the limited one track thinking of which people are capable. You jump on my submission because you suspect original thought. Where were you when the statement in the “Solar power satellites” section that the launch costs from the Moon were about 100 times less than the cost of launching from Earth stood in the Wikipedia article month after month unchallenged? Did you excuse such a statement because you thought it showed original lack of thought, which is OK? That statement portrays a patently false notion that there is some definite cost to the launching of stuff from the Moon besides the historically documented Apollo costs. There will be definite costs when launch is actually accomplished or planned with such detail that costs can be accounted. The lower limits on costs certainly can not be accounted yet. The “100 times less” statement is not even original. I’ve seen it before, but having nonsense published in a book doesn’t turn it into truth. FARTHERRED--98.240.152.101 (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't "jump on" anything. Your change showed up on my watchlist, so I looked into it and ended up cleaning up the references. While reading over the materiel that you added (including actually looking at and reading the references), I became concerned that this addition was a synthesis. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS for more information.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In The Space Settlement FAQ by Mike Combs, on the question of Why not build solar power stations on the moon? http://space.mike-combs.com/spacesetl.htm#how_can_we_afford_to_build Mike refers to the cost of launching to orbit from Luna as “a pennies-per-pound proposition.” Other sources have not been so careful to be vague. The low cost of transportation from Luna is not new with me, though I add the thought that there is a lack of mentioning the various elements of cost. As I see it the facts I cited are only combined arithmetically as in the “Routine calculations” section of the No original research policy. If Wikipedia chooses to see it differently my contribution can be removed, but I think the reader looses. The “100 times less” statement can even be verified as from an outside source, but I won’t tell you where. I am blatantly partisan and only present fair statements of the issue because that is what I consider most effective. I will try to get better references for my statements, but hope editors will indulge what I have written or at least some statement of the lack of certainty of the lower limit of launch costs from Luna. The wide variety of claims should at least support uncertainty. There is a potential for the cost of reaching orbit from Luna to get as low as "100 times less" than the cost of launching from Earth, but why stop there? Please do not restore that rediculous claim without a reference.FARTHERRED--98.240.152.101 (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the section a bit to clean up the language and to remove some unneeded speculation (dynamic breaking is a detail not needed for a rough estimate like this). However we should be able to find sources for the low energy cost needed to put material into lunar orbit or to move it to L4/L5. The ideas have long been written about.--agr (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is some mistake here. Whoever originally removed the edits that I made to my own comments seems to have been under the impression that some third party was improperly editing my comments while masquerading as me. Editing from more than one IP address seems to me to be within the limits of practices allowed by Wikipedia, so the reverting of my edits should be acknowledged as an error. I have tried to identify myself when editing without being logged in. What behavior is desired?
• I am glad that people with ability have taken some interest in improving the "Colonization of the Moon" article. It is important because people need to see that a desirable future is possible before they put out the effort to make it become the future. I think Wikipedia can fulfill its share of this function without advocating colonization, merely stating what is known and allowing people to decide their aims with more information. The launch cost section still falls short in that it compares the Apollo program costs of returning material to Earth with the proposed electric launch to lunar orbit. Increasing electric launch velocity by a factor of 2^(1/2) could get projectiles to L2 from which collected cargo could fall to low earth orbit and achieve capture by aerobraking. Collected cargo in circular orbit about the Moon would need to be boosted to get to Earth. I might be able to put what is needed compactly into the article, but anyone can take a shot at it.

--Fartherred (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC) I've seen the messsage about editing comments.--Fartherred (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The edits were reverted because they were being made from an IP address that did not match the one used to post the comments. If you wish your identity to be verifiable from multiple IP addresses you need to make your edits while logged into a Wikipedia user account. I see that you have now made an account so if you wish to edit comments you make in future under that account name, your edits will not be reverted. DoktorDec (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A caveat to the above is that any such edits need to comply with guidelines detailed here: Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable. DoktorDec (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This talk thread can be an example of behavior to avoid. I was influenced by anger to retaliate against the suggestion that my submission of the 9th of July, 19:49hours was less than perfect. Let me make excuses. Why should I be angry at criticism of my work when I have received worse criticism without being angry? There have been suggestions that I committed improbable, immoral, and illegal acts and descended from dishonorable and even inhuman ancestry to which suggestions I responded with only a curious expression, wondering why anyone would say such things. On the Wikipedia article I had long wanted to correct what I considered an important error, and had only recently settled on a plan to get references for my concept of a verifiable article. I had been discussing changes on the talk page since the 27th of June with no response and was eager to do fixes of the article. Then there was this suggestion with some merit that my work was synthesis, when the former claim of a launch cost had been tolerated for a couple of years with no reference at all. It seemed as though my efforts were unappreciated or perhaps destined to be removed. It was a prime time for me to have stepped back considered the other fellows point of view, recognized the worth of others’ efforts and diligently used polite wording. I failed. I do not know Ohm (Ohms law) but suppose he merely volunteered to watch the Colonization of the Moon article to protect it from vandals and well meaning incompetents. It would be only natural in that case for Ohm to assume the bulk of the article as worthwhile (as it is) and concern himself with changes. I am thankful for his efforts.--Fartherred (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• The changing of the signature for user Ohms law may prevent confusion generally, but in this discussion I have referred to Ohms law as Ohm based on the previous signature which was a Greek capital omega, a symbol used by electronics technicians and hobbyists to mean ohm, the standard unit of electrical resistance. So wherever in the above discussion I referred to Ohm, user Ohms law was meant. As to the central point of this discussion, I believe that as user ArnoldReinhold worded his version of the launch cost portion of the article, it clearly makes no synthesis of argument not supported by the sources cited. This is material that is sufficiently well known to those with some knowledge of physical sciences and an interest in colonizing the Moon that there should not be any serious disagreement. If user Ohms law can indicate a lack of objection to the removal of the synthesis tag, we can call that consensus.--Fartherred (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)